Search

Background The use of foresight studies is common in some policy fields, but not in public health. Interest in such studies is growing. This paper gives a general overview of the Dutch Public Health Foresight Study (PHFS) 2018, providing insight into what performing a broad scenario exercise in the field of public health entails and its societal impacts. Methods The aim of the PHFS-2018 was: (a) to show how public health and healthcare in the Netherlands will develop over the next 25 years if we pursue our current course and detect 'new' developments; (b) to give options for dealing with the major future societal challenges. Part a was addressed by means of a quantitative business-as-usual scenario exercise complemented with qualitative thematic studies, and part b by elaborating courses of action for three key challenges, based on stakeholder consultation. Typical aspects of the PHFS methods are a multidisciplinary, participatory and conceptual approach and using a broad definition of health. Results The PHFS-2018 is the basis for the upcoming National Health Policy Memorandum and the Trend Scenario is the baseline for the National Prevention Agreement. Unexpectedly, the findings about increasing mental pressure in young people received most attention. There still is room for expanding use of the study to its full potential. Conclusions Long-term thinking could be stimulated by using back casting techniques and stronger involvement of policy-makers in the elaboration of options for action. Lessons learned from developing intersectoral policy at the local level could be applied at the national level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For almost a century, the Netherlands was marked by a large market for voluntary private health insurance alongside state-regulated social health insurance. Throughout this period, private health insurers tried to safeguard their position within an expanding welfare state. From an institutional logics perspective, we analyze how private health insurers tried to reconcile the tension between a competitive insurance market pressuring for selective underwriting and actuarially fair premiums (the insurance logic), and an upcoming welfare state pressuring for universal access and socially fair premiums (the welfare state logic). Based on primary sources and the extant historiography, we distinguish six periods in which the balance between both logics changed significantly. We identify various strategies employed by private insurers to reconcile the competing logics. Some of these were temporarily successful, but required measures that were incompatible with the idea of free entrepreneurship and consumer choice. We conclude that universal access can only be achieved in a competitive individual private health insurance market if this market is effectively regulated and mandatory cross-subsidies are effectively enforced. The Dutch case demonstrates that achieving universal access in a competitive private health insurance market is institutionally complex and requires broad political and societal support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]